[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raju & Ors. vs The State Of M.P. on 1 December, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62119
1 CRA-650-2001
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 1 st OF DECEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 650 of 2001
RAJU & ORS. AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Ms. Vineeta Patel - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Pramod Choubey - Govt. Advocate for respondent State.
Shri Balram Koshta - Advocate for Objector.
ORDER
Record is already received.
2. This Criminal Appeal was admitted on 23.04.2001.
3. With the consent of counsel for both the parties, the matter is heard
finally.
4. It is informed by the counsel for appellants that appellant No. 2
Raghuveer has expired on 19.01.2019. Thus appellants Raju and Neeraj
remain.
5. Complainant is Chandan Singh as reflected from judgment dated
27.3.2001 passed by Fifth Addl. Sessions Judge, Sagar in S.T No. 239/2000 -
State of M.P. through P.S. Banda district Sagar v. Raju and others wherein
the learned Trial Court acquitted the appellant Govind and Sandeep as per
paragraph 30 of the judgment whereas the present remaining appellants have
been convicted for the offences under Section 325/34 I.P.C and sentenced
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62119
2 CRA-650-2001
R.I. for four years with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation, under
Section 325/34 I.P.C and sentenced R.I. for two years with fine of Rs.300/-
with default stipulation and under Section 323 I.P.C and sentenced to R.I. for
six months. All the sentences to run concurrently.
6. It is seen that compromise statement have been made on 10.10.2025
of Chandan Singh and Vijay Singh Lodhi. It is seen that as per order dated
22.11.2025 custody report of the appellants is received. Regarding
compromise, details have been given in the order-sheet dated 12.11.2025.
7. As per custody report filed by Govt. Advocate vide letter No.
4239/2025 dated 16.11.2025 applicant Raju has remained in actual custody
of two months and seven days and applicant Neeraj remaining in actual
custody for two months and two days. Custody report is taken on record.
8. It is seen that on 10.10.2025 Accused Raju Sen and Neeraj Sen also
appeared before the learned Registrar (J-2). Therefore, it is found that
compromise has taken place voluntarily. Accordingly permission for
compromise is granted and compromise is allowed.
9. Now perused the judgment.
10. Learned counsel for appellants submits that since Section 326
I.P.C is not compoundable, therefore, he is not pressing his appeal for
conviction but prays for reduction of sentence.
11. Perused the statement of P.W.-1- Dr. Subhash Jain, P.W.-3
Kamlesh, P.W.-4 Man Singh, P.W.-5 Hariram, P.W.-6 Chandan Singh, P.W-
7 Vijay Singh, P.W. -8 Randheer, P.W.-9 Dheeraj, P.W.-10 Devi Singh,
P.W. 11 - Jay Bhagwan, P.W.-12 Devi Shankar, P.W.-13 Anand Dubey,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62119
3 CRA-650-2001
P.W.-14 Shivanand, P.W. 15 Mangal Singh and P.W. 16 Dr. M.L. Jain
Medical Officer and D.W.-1 Raghunandan, D.W.-2 Vijendra Singh, D.W.-3
Rajdhar, D.W.-4 Akhilesh Mishra, D.W.-5 Rajkumar Dubey.
12. It is seen that the conviction of the appellant is well justified and
well reasoned. Accordingly the appeal against the conviction is dismissed.
13. Regarding quantum of sentence; looking to the facts and
circumstances of the case, the appellants' sentence is interfered with and it is
directed that sentence of appellants Raju and Neeraj, R.I. shall be for the
same period which they have already served under Sections 326, 325 and 323
I.P.C with fine as awarded by the trial Court and with the same default
stipulations as awarded by the learned trial Court.
14. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and disposed of in above
terms. Disposal of the property shall be as per the judgment of the trial
Court.
15. Let the fine amount, if not already deposited be deposited within
15 days from today.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
VKT
